lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] HID: i2c-hid: add polling mode based on connected GPIO chip's pin status
Hi,

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 01:06:14PM +0000, Barnabás Pőcze wrote:
>Hi
>
>> [...]
>> >> +static int get_gpio_pin_state(struct irq_desc *irq_desc)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(&irq_desc->irq_data);
>> >> +
>> >> + return gc->get(gc, irq_desc->irq_data.hwirq);
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static bool interrupt_line_active(struct i2c_client *client)
>> >> +{
>> >> + unsigned long trigger_type = irq_get_trigger_type(client->irq);
>> >> + struct irq_desc *irq_desc = irq_to_desc(client->irq);
>> >> +
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * According to Windows Precsiontion Touchpad's specs
>> >> + * https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/component-guidelines/windows-precision-touchpad-device-bus-connectivity,
>> >> + * GPIO Interrupt Assertion Leve could be either ActiveLow or
>> >> + * ActiveHigh.
>> >> + */
>> >> + if (trigger_type & IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW)
>> >> + return !get_gpio_pin_state(irq_desc);
>> >> +
>> >> + return get_gpio_pin_state(irq_desc);
>> >> +}
>> >
>> >Excuse my ignorance, but I think some kind of error handling regarding the return
>> >value of `get_gpio_pin_state()` should be present here.
>> >
>> What kind of errors would you expect? It seems (struct gpio_chip *)->get
>> only return 0 or 1.
>> >
>
>I read the code of a couple gpio chips and - I may be wrong, but - it seems they
>can return an arbitrary errno.
>
I thought all GPIO chip return 0 or 1 since !!val is returned. I find
an example which could return negative value,

// drivers/gpio/gpio-wm8994.c
static int wm8994_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
{
struct wm8994_gpio *wm8994_gpio = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
struct wm8994 *wm8994 = wm8994_gpio->wm8994;
int ret;

ret = wm8994_reg_read(wm8994, WM8994_GPIO_1 + offset);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;

if (ret & WM8994_GPN_LVL)
return 1;
else
return 0;
}
>
>> >> +
>> >> +static int i2c_hid_polling_thread(void *i2c_hid)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct i2c_hid *ihid = i2c_hid;
>> >> + struct i2c_client *client = ihid->client;
>> >> + unsigned int polling_interval_idle;
>> >> +
>> >> + while (1) {
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * re-calculate polling_interval_idle
>> >> + * so the module parameters polling_interval_idle_ms can be
>> >> + * changed dynamically through sysfs as polling_interval_active_us
>> >> + */
>> >> + polling_interval_idle = polling_interval_idle_ms * 1000;
>> >> + if (test_bit(I2C_HID_READ_PENDING, &ihid->flags))
>> >> + usleep_range(50000, 100000);
>> >> +
>> >> + if (kthread_should_stop())
>> >> + break;
>> >> +
>> >> + while (interrupt_line_active(client)) {
>> >
>> >I realize it's quite unlikely, but can't this be a endless loop if data is coming
>> >in at a high enough rate? Maybe the maximum number of iterations could be limited here?
>> >
>> If we find HID reports are constantly read and send to front-end
>> application like libinput, won't it help expose the problem of the I2C
>> HiD device?
>> >
>
>I'm not sure I completely understand your point. The reason why I wrote what I wrote
>is that this kthread could potentially could go on forever (since `kthread_should_stop()`
>is not checked in the inner while loop) if the data is supplied at a high enough rate.
>That's why I said, to avoid this problem, only allow a certain number of iterations
>for the inner loop, to guarantee that the kthread can stop in any case.
>
I mean if "data is supplied at a high enough rate" does happen, this is
an abnormal case and indicates a bug. So we shouldn't cover it up. We
expect the user to report it to us.
>
>> >> + i2c_hid_get_input(ihid);
>> >> + usleep_range(polling_interval_active_us,
>> >> + polling_interval_active_us + 100);
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + usleep_range(polling_interval_idle,
>> >> + polling_interval_idle + 1000);
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + do_exit(0);
>> >> + return 0;
>> >> +}
>> [...]
>> >Excuse my ignorance, but I do not understand why the following two changes are not enough:
>> >
>> >in `i2c_hid_suspend()`:
>> > if (polling_mode == I2C_POLLING_DISABLED)
>> > disable_irq(client->irq);
>> >
>> >in `i2c_hid_resume()`:
>> > if (polling_mode == I2C_POLLING_DISABLED)
>> > enable_irq(client->irq);
>> >
>> I think we shouldn't call enable/disable_irq_wake in polling mode
>> where we don't set up irq.
>
>I think I now understand what you mean. I'm not sure, but it seems logical to me
>that you can enable/disable irq wake regardless whether any irq handlers are
>registered or not. Therefore, I figure it makes sense to take the safe path,
>and don't touch irq wake when polling, just as you did.
>

Thank you for offering your understandings on this patch. When I'm going
to submit next version, I will add a "Signed-off-by" tag with your name
and email, does it look good to you?
>
>> [...]
>
>
>Regards,
>Barnabás Pőcze

--
Best regards,
Coiby

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-17 16:07    [W:0.073 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site